Some royal accounts say that the current King Charles III once told his ex-wife, Diana, Princess of Wales, before their separation, that she could learn a bit more from Sarah Ferguson, who had great charisma and was very pragmatic about palace matters. More of a smile for the outside world and less vulnerability behind closed doors was what he demanded of the mother of his children, a woman who suffered greatly at his hands not because of his own personality but because of the way he treated her. This statement resonates more than ever these days, now that we've learned that the cheerful and pragmatic Fergie was even worse than we imagined: a ruthless woman capable of acting without any principles to achieve her goals, which were almost always material. Just to give one example: after Epstein was convicted of pimping and attempting to prostitute a minor in 2008, she took her two daughters to meet him at the Florida mansion where he was under house arrest. As if to ingratiate herself with the millionaire who we now also know supported her for almost a decade. Like a kind of offering. If Diana had been like Ferguson, as her husband asked her to be, Charles III might not be king today, just as his brother is no longer a prince...

"The law must take its course." Reading Charles III of England's statement on his brother's arrest brings to mind Juan Carlos I referring to his son-in-law with that famous, hypocritical phrase, later disproven by reality: "Justice is equal for all." Perhaps from now on, justice will be a little more equal, because the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is a pebble making waves in the global pond of the untouchables. It is the rule of law venturing into uncharted territory: the written and unwritten privileges of the British monarchy. Andrew detained at the police station is like Cinderella's carriage turning into a pumpkin pulled by mice.

One of Netflix's biggest blunders is the new, mock-documentary series starring Meghan Markle. It's part of the agreements the Duke and Duchess of Sussex signed with the platform when the couple seemed to be at the height of their popularity, standing up to the British royal family. It's now obvious that Prince Harry and his wife not only lack any audiovisual criteria, but that everything they can contribute is contrived, vulgar, and offensively classist. Each of the eight episodes of With love, Meghan They could perfectly be Tik Tok videos of anyone tradwife American. Meghan is playing hostess in a grotesque farce. In a house that isn't hers, in a garden that doesn't belong to her, and in a kitchen that looks like a set for a furniture magazine, she pretends to receive some of her friends with great elegance and artificial enthusiasm. Friends trained to suck up to her and behave as Mrs. Sussex expects. She even has the nerve to correct a friend who dares to mention her by name: "No one would have imagined that Meghan Markle once ate at this fast-food..." and the protagonist, with the repulsion of someone claiming a status, makes a clarification: "I find it funny that you call me Meghan Markle. You know that now I am Sussex..." and makes a kind of argument about the importance of sharing the surname with her children and claiming the value of the family.

Queen Elizabeth II has become an unwitting source of controversy at the University of Oxford. Some members of the Oxford intelligentsia including the Education minister, Gavin Williamson, have called this an "absurd" episode. Postgraduate students at Magdalen College have voted to remove a portrait of the monarch based on a photograph by Dorothy Wilding, taken in 1952, at the time she was crowned.